Question for those who post new ideas.

[md65536]

I'm curious as to where my own beliefs and expectations are relative to my "peers".

 

This poll is aimed mainly at fellow speculators for which I assume the following are true:

- The topic you're speculating on is not related to your main area of work/study (unless working independently full-time on your theories).

- You're more interested in developing a new idea on a topic than understanding all existing knowledge on the topic.

 

Thanks for your input!

Edited April 2, 2011 by md65536

[michel123456]

Nothing of the above:

_I have not Einstein's capacities.

_I have not enough time & knowledge to write any theory.

_I will never win a Nobel Prize, these are for people who have spend a lifetime in research aiming to make Humanity a better place, or so it should be.

_I am learning all the time and i will never make an important discovery, I am afraid.

_I think my ideas are correct & important.

_I tend to speculate.

 

Why?

Because life is short, and I am afraid all my ideas will die with me.

It is impossible to discuss with anyone of my entourage. They simply don't care.

This Forum is a legacy. I hope being like Midas's barber shouting to the river.

 

----------------------

edit

 

There is another reason:

I was always interested in science. At the age of 40, I suffered a (hidden) age-complex. Wow, I just passed through the middle of my expected lifetime span (and more, my father died 62), it is not acceptable to die without even knowing where I live. What is this planet, the Sun, the Moon, the Galaxy, the Universe? Where am I? Existential question.

 

Then I said to myself; go and learn, there are plenty of people who know about that, open a book and learn about what we know. And so I did.

The problems came quickly. It was totally impossible to accept. I felt like those books were made for imbeciles.

And after 10 years, I still feel the same.

The common reaction at my feelings is "Michel don't understand".

Maybe.

Probably.

What are the probabilities?

99.99%?

I bet everything on 0,01.

Edited April 2, 2011 by michel123456

[Ophiolite]

I voted for I do not tend to speculate and post my own "new ideas".

 

However this was because it was closest to my preferred response, which was not present.

I do tend to speculate, but i do not post my own "new ideas".

 

It would be arrogant in the extreme to post improperly formulated ideas on the forum and expect them to be accorded any kind of attention or respect. I am continually belwildered by the psychology of those who do post such ideas with the apparently sincere belief that they are correct. I can only attribute this, in most instances, to deep rooted stupidity or simple brain damage. To say I have the utmost contempt for such individuals would be to understate the situation. I sincerely believe their approach to life and to science undermines society in a small, but significant way.

 

You asked. I answered.

[md65536]

_I am learning all the time and i will never make an important discovery, I am afraid.

_I think my ideas are correct & important.

Yes, the poll could have been clearer and without gaps in the answers.

Part of the poll's purpose is to figure out how grandiose (not necessarily unrealistic) our expectations are. Your post sums it up, for you.

 

I think that having NEW ideas that are correct and important constitutes making an important discovery. So that option's good, except that it doesn't exactly express what you wrote. However, I can't think of how to perfect the wording of the poll.

 

 

 

However this was because it was closest to my preferred response, which was not present.

I do tend to speculate, but i do not post my own "new ideas".

 

It would be arrogant in the extreme to post improperly formulated ideas on the forum and expect them to be accorded any kind of attention or respect. I am continually belwildered by the psychology of those who do post such ideas with the apparently sincere belief that they are correct. I can only attribute this, in most instances, to deep rooted stupidity or simple brain damage. To say I have the utmost contempt for such individuals would be to understate the situation. I sincerely believe their approach to life and to science undermines society in a small, but significant way.

I'm more interested in where people expect their ideas to take them, rather than how realistic those expectations are.

 

Personally, I think that posting an idea with a sincere belief that it is correct comes from never having experienced the proper development of an idea in a way that can answer questions about it (and inevitably having those answers change the idea). I think that assuming a specific idea is correct often indicates having a limited view of the alternatives; once you see how investigating an idea can open up a tonne of alternatives that you hadn't even imagined, it's harder to take ideas for granted after that.

 

I like to think that ideas can be "good" and yet completely wrong, if answering questions about it refines the idea rather than eroding it to nothing. Posting a crazy idea might be just a starting point for it.

 

I think that unrealistic goals can be good, but they need to be balanced with realism and an acceptance of possible (maybe likely) failure.

Having a goal of winning a gold medal in the olympics is admirable. Having a goal of winning the lottery is foolish.

Edited April 2, 2011 by md65536

[Mr Skeptic]

I voted for I do not tend to speculate and post my own "new ideas".

 

However this was because it was closest to my preferred response, which was not present.

I do tend to speculate, but i do not post my own "new ideas".

 

It would be arrogant in the extreme to post improperly formulated ideas on the forum and expect them to be accorded any kind of attention or respect. I am continually belwildered by the psychology of those who do post such ideas with the apparently sincere belief that they are correct. I can only attribute this, in most instances, to deep rooted stupidity or simple brain damage. To say I have the utmost contempt for such individuals would be to understate the situation. I sincerely believe their approach to life and to science undermines society in a small, but significant way.

 

Ophiolite pretty much summed it up for me. I don't post "new ideas" because first I need to do what I can to develop the idea, and only then is it worth it to ask other people for input. And almost always with the expectation that said idea is incorrect but I was just not clever or educated enough to know why, but would really like to know.

 

I do also have some super-grandiose ideas (I sometimes like to daydream). I never post them. Why? If there were a half-way decent chance that that idea would go anywhere, I'd take out a loan and get working on said idea, not hand it out to a bunch of random people who would either think it a crackpot idea or perhaps steal it (If I wanted to share that sort of idea I'd do it much more privately). And if there's realistically no chance the idea is of any value, then other people really won't (shouldn't) care about the idea.

[TonyMcC]

I think my ideas are likely incorrect........

Several years ago I was impressed by a TV program on "Fermat's Last Theorem" given by Prof. Andrew Wiles. I was particularly stirred by the emotion that he displayed in the program. As a result I have spent some of my spare time chewing on this problem and like to discuss it with like minded people.

I realise that my chances of finding a simple solution must be as close to zero as makes no difference - but it is pleasant to daydream now and then!

[lemur]

The next Einstein? Who says I'm not Einstein currently?

 

Seriously, though, I find these ego-reflections on the (potential) status of one's thoughts stifling to creativity. Sure, it might be fun to fantasize that your idea could radically improve life and you would be showered in praise, prizes, other professional recognition, and of course money and material rewards - but of course the shame of openly desiring such things must override the will to actively pursue them. People who do wish to hold on to such dreams usually attempt to endow them with a higher level of realism by inserting themselves into the honing machinery of academic degree programs, where they "position themselves" among other scholars who are perceived as truly elite heirs of the forefront of modernization previously inhabited by the scholars they recognize as having utmost historical importance.

 

One of my favorite things about online forums compared with academic journals, books, and other publications is that they are short, to the point, and relatively ephemeral. People don't spend pages and pages building up their knowledge and ideas in a way that will serve as a historical reference point if their perspective turns out to become canonical. Imagine Einstein or any of the physicists of that time had indeed regularly posted thoughts, ideas, data, speculations, etc. in an online discussion forum. Imagine, then, that numerous other people interested in physics at the time did as well and the forum(s) were filled with all sorts of ideas/thoughts across the spectrum of possibilities.

 

Academia, imo, tends to promote a presentation and approach to knowledge that fetishizes it (or maybe it's not academia but the culture that surrounds it, idk). When an aura is built up around ideas/research and their thinkers, such as Einstein, it weighs down the ability to freely, actively, and creatively engage any and all ideas you learn about. Academicians "put each other in their place" when they engage knowledge differently than they are expected to do according to their qualifications. This happens, imo, because there is an assumption that if random people could read about science in their free time at the library and generate valuable scholarship as a result, it would threaten the status of the institutions as being necessary channels for anyone to become a truly valuable productive scientist.

 

Why do I personally post new ideas? Because I have them and I think they're interesting to think about and discuss. Whatever else the purpose of science is in a grand sense of discovery and technological/cultural progress, etc., it is also a means for people to keep their minds active and vital. If you work at a university or in some other situation where you have opportunities to engage in stimulating discussions and research with bright, intelligent, creative people - then you may take that privilege for granted. But think about all the people who are stuck in some dead-end job, or that are old and/or otherwise constrained socially. For them, and anyone else for that matter, I think it is nice to have online forums where they can achieve the same sense of creative collaboration and personal discovery that people working in academia get regularly. So even if I think an idea I have is somewhat crazy, if it's interesting I will try to at least develop it into something that can be subject to some level of rigor so that it can be critically engaged. Then, even if it turns out to be nonsense, I think at least it provided an opportunity for people to practice critical engagement skills and for others who don't have such skills yet (or not to a very strong level yet) can learn from reading the exchange. Also, such critical discussions can end up being venues for proven scientific knowledge to be learned in terms of how they apply to concrete issues. So someone could learn what momentum is by googling it, or they could learn what it is by reading critical discussion in a thread where momentum becomes an issue.

[michel123456]

(...)

I do also have some super-grandiose ideas (I sometimes like to daydream). I never post them. Why? If there were a half-way decent chance that that idea would go anywhere, I'd take out a loan and get working on said idea, not hand it out to a bunch of random people who would either think it a crackpot idea or perhaps steal it (If I wanted to share that sort of idea I'd do it much more privately). And if there's realistically no chance the idea is of any value, then other people really won't (shouldn't) care about the idea.

 

I suppose that is the reason why you find only crackpots under speculation forum.

People who know something are afraid to share their ideas because they want personal recognition, admiration, glory. they don't care a s... about the benefits of their idea for mankind. We have at our disposal the most wonderful tool for sharing ideas, and we don't use it. It is a shame.

 

On the other hand, people who know something are afraid of failure. It is not well accepted that a brilliant mind can make a mistake. When it happens, it is marked in red in all encyclopedias.

 

So, nothing helps in sharing ideas. Scientists don't use the tool at disposal, they remain on the last century slow process of peer reviewed publication. which is the reason why they are afraid to be stolen. The glory will go to the first published, not to the genius who had the first hintch.

[36grit]

We all present our models.

 

 

[lemur]

On the other hand, people who know something are afraid of failure. It is not well accepted that a brilliant mind can make a mistake. When it happens, it is marked in red in all encyclopedias.

That may be, but if you explain how you came to the idea you did, and it's clever, you will be respected for that even if it turns out to be wrong, I think. Maybe not by the paparazzi/media, but they're just out to humiliate people for the show of it anyway.

 

So, nothing helps in sharing ideas. Scientists don't use the tool at disposal, they remain on the last century slow process of peer reviewed publication. which is the reason why they are afraid to be stolen. The glory will go to the first published, not to the genius who had the first hintch.

Someone once said that if you had a cure for AIDS, you would not have to wait on peer review to be published. Generally, however, I think people should skip the peer review process and just publish online. Sure, that would make it more difficult to sell journal subscriptions that provide funding to their host departments and employees, but the popularization of home video playback equipment also made it more difficult to sell cinema seats, but they still do.

 

 

[jackson33]

Ophiolite pretty much summed it up for me. I don't post "new ideas" because first I need to do what I can to develop the idea, and only then is it worth it to ask other people for input. And almost always with the expectation that said idea is incorrect but I was just not clever or educated enough to know why, but would really like to know.[/Quote]

 

Skeptic and Ophie; In the process of developing and idea, hypotheses or even some speculation, what better place to do it than on a related forum. We're not all privy to total knowledge and there might just be somebody around here or googling the issue, that could help.

 

Going back 7 years or so, my first ventures into science forums and issues, were based on ideas I had many years ago, Tiny Universe (Our entire universe being but a speck of dust) and "Darkness" being an object opposed to nothing. Those threads turned me on to many other ideas, even though the subjects were pure speculation...

 

 

md; Factually, probably every great mind science that has made contributions to science, began with little or no creditability, Galileo to Ben Franklin and Einstein come to mind as specifics. I don't think these folks or any other notables, in the beginning felt they knew it all, but could reason.

 

Then expressing, the ability to articulate an idea/subject, is not really that easy and a good many so called "nut cases" you hear about, IMO are simply lacking that ability. For the record, I personally read all threads, I see, that indicates something new or original, 9 out of ten are usually NOT new at all, but new to the poster, but that one on ten are usually interesting. One example here on going is the sun giving birth to planets, though it's the replies that interest me, as on another forum where the Universe might be spinning as a Galaxy.

[michel123456]

(...)md; Factually, probably every great mind science that has made contributions to science, began with little or no creditability, Galileo to Ben Franklin and Einstein come to mind as specifics. I don't think these folks or any other notables, in the beginning felt they knew it all, but could reason.

(...)

 

Galileo is IMHO one of he greatest mind ever. He was a friend of the Pope and a well recognized scientist of his time. He had a lot of credibility , he was not a crackpot-like individual. His credibility was the reason to be driven into his adventure (in fact it seems he overestimated his influence). If he was considered as a crackpot, no one would have bothered.

Edited April 3, 2011 by michel123456

[jackson33]

michel; I agree that Galileo had a great mind for the period of time he lived and this is why he was picked out as an example, but acceptance of his ideas were not wildly accepted...

 

With the loss of many of his defenders in Rome because of Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. The sentence of the Inquisition was in three essential parts:

 

Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions.[50]

 

He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition.[51] On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.

 

His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.[52] [/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

[rigney]

Since the phrase, "Where there is little, little is required", fits me perfectly, the questioneer is useless to me. Until May of last year, my understanding of the universe was somewhere between zero and nil. Today, the 3rd of April 2011, my prospectus is as dim. While some of you are well into the sciences, I'm tossed because of my ignorance. But I read and try to maintain as much information as possible. My posts ares usually in generalaties simply because I usually have no basis for one, other than what I have read. While there are many formus to choose from, I prefer this one because none of you let anyone get away with anything.

[jackson33]

By golly rigney, it has almost been a year and 830 post. I think it's a little late for either of us to make an impact on Science, but sometimes even the simplest of suggestions can light up the minds of the young. That's a challenge I would gratefully accept.

[rigney]

By golly rigney, it has almost been a year and 830 post. I think it's a little late for either of us to make an impact on Science, but sometimes even the simplest of suggestions can light up the minds of the young. That's a challenge I would gratefully accept.

 

No impact Jackson! Just hoping someone has gleaned an idea or two from my ramblings and shortcomings. Hey; that's what it's all about. I have enjoyed the 'almost' year I've spent on the forum. Most of these guys are sharper than a tack with two points. Just hope my participation hasn't been to rude and unnecessary. And may I say, Thanks much to you. There is much more to (our) universe than any of us can ever imagine at this time???? But it's more than just a dream guy, and perhaps reasoning beyond our grasp to ferrett it all out. But eventually someone will, "get 'er done". Edited April 3, 2011 by rigney

[ScottTheSculptor]

I *am* the "next Einstein" and I *am* just waiting for the world to catch up. . .

 

link deleted

 

See if you can break it

Edited April 4, 2011 by swansont
hijack

[ajb]

For sure I will not be considered as the "next Einstein". I guess the closest to that title today must go to Edward Witten. His ability to tie together mathematical ideas with physical ideas has influenced today's theoretical physicists and mathematicians hugely.

 

For my own work, I just hope that someone will get something out of it. I cannot say that any of my ideas have been very influential at all. I hope that will change as time goes on. Overall, I would hope by the end of my career to have a paper or two that is well cited and could be considered as quite influential. For most scientists I know, this is common. Most seem to have one or two great ideas that lead to well cited papers. There are of course those that seem to have many influential papers, Witten is somewhat of an anomaly in this respect.

 

As long as I can keep publishing and get a few citations I will not complain.

[md65536]

I admire the optimistic posts and the realistic ones, but I'm a little disappointed in the level of pessimism here. Kudos to the next Einsteins who voted!

 

I think:

 

Not all of the "basic" great ideas (those that don't require very specialized education) have been thought; there may not even be a finite number of them. Anyone can think of something important.

 

Believing in yourself is a very good thing.

 

It's true that Einstein had an extraordinary range and depth of talents that let him develop his ideas much much better than most of us ever can, but you can be "the next Einstein" with only a fraction of his accomplishments. The main important thing IMHO is to have an idea that changes science the way his did.

 

The following characteristics are helpful or necessary:

- Imagination and creativity.

- Ability to reason.

- Ability to comprehend (to answer your own questions by researching and reading about it).

- A very open mind (to challenge both what you learn and what you think, AND at the same time be able to accept both what you learn and what you think).

- A high degree of interest.

- The optimism and self-belief to persevere.

- A passable education in sciences, math, writing, perhaps logic, etc.

 

The reason that I think that ANYONE can come up with a great idea, is that all of these things can be improved. They're not fixed and inherent. Most people are not interested enough. Most people don't believe they'd could do something important. But that can be developed.

 

One exception is "ability to reason", ie IQ, which apparently is not something you can change a lot. So when I say "ANYONE", I must say it only figuratively, because of course there are many many exceptions.

 

We are each living on the cutting edge of history (ie the present) and can each choose to be an important part of it, in one way or another.

 

---

 

Is being unrealistically optimistic about statistically unlikely things, good?

- Yes, but only where that optimism helps you (inspires you, drives you, etc). If it makes you skip research, or get into fights on forums, it is a hinderance.

- Yes, if it's okay to fail.

 

Suppose a million people believed they were the next Einstein but only one of them could be technically next. It would be silly if all of them avoid trying because of the low chance that it could be them. In the end, if that million people tried their best, and one of them made the next big discovery, wouldn't that still be worth it despite all those who tried and failed? For humanity, certainly it would be worth it. I think it would be worth it to be one of those million who tried, even if I fail. So believing that I can do it is a good thing.

 

 

Sorry if I've rehashed any of the debate that's already been done many times in other threads.

 

---

 

Edit: I created this motivator to sum up a point I was thinking about...

 

Edited April 4, 2011 by md65536

[Mr Skeptic]

Suppose a million people believed they were the next Einstein but only one of them could be technically next. It would be silly if all of them avoid trying because of the low chance that it could be them. In the end, if that million people tried their best, and one of them made the next big discovery, wouldn't that still be worth it despite all those who tried and failed? For humanity, certainly it would be worth it. I think it would be worth it to be one of those million who tried, even if I fail. So believing that I can do it is a good thing.

 

I'm pretty sure a million average scientists will outdo anything the "next Einstein" can do.

[36grit]

I don't know if I'm a moron or a genius. I just listen to a few voices inside and trust they'll explain things to me the best that I can understand, but what do you wanrt? I am just a little more than a monkey.

[jamiestem]

If you suggest new things on here, the very few people who do respond usually respond negatively. When you argue science fact, the moderator usually will be a douchebag and stop you, EVEN in speculations. Then they lock your topic if they don't like the direction it goes. So who really cares why you would post a new idea. What you should do according to this site is take your new idea and shove it up your own ass.

[36grit]

If you suggest new things on here, the very few people who do respond usually respond negatively. When you argue science fact, the moderator usually will be a douchebag and stop you, EVEN in speculations. Then they lock your topic if they don't like the direction it goes. So who really cares why you would post a new idea. What you should do according to this site is take your new idea and shove it up your own ass.

 

 

I have not experienced this. Everybody so far has, at the very least, been respectful. My ideas and hypothesis' get ignored alot but I see know reason to complain about that.

[zapatos]

If you suggest new things on here, the very few people who do respond usually respond negatively. When you argue science fact, the moderator usually will be a douchebag and stop you, EVEN in speculations. Then they lock your topic if they don't like the direction it goes. So who really cares why you would post a new idea. What you should do according to this site is take your new idea and shove it up your own ass.

I work with a person who finds that nearly everyone she has to work with is basically a total jerk. She is always amazed that so many people can be like that. Interestingly enough no one else from work seemes to have problems with any of the others at work. They only have difficulties with her. It's interesting that even though she is the common denominator, it never occurs to her that perhaps the problem may be with her, and not all of them.

[jamiestem]

what's your friend from work's number? We'd probably get along. I'm just saying.